View previous stories
	UN Human rights experts express concerns over new trade agreements threat to public interest rights by UNHCHR, The Lancet, Oxfam, MSF, agencies   June 2015   A number of free trade and investment agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), are currently being negotiated. A group of UN experts have issued the following statement to express concern about the secret nature of drawing up and negotiating many of these agreements and the potential adverse impact of these agreements on human rights:   “While trade and investment agreements can create new economic opportunities, we draw attention to the potential detrimental impact these treaties and agreements may have on the enjoyment of human rights as enshrined in legally binding instruments, whether civil, cultural, economic, political or social.   Our concerns relate to the rights to life, food, water and sanitation, health, housing, education, science and culture, improved labour standards, an independent judiciary, a clean environment and the right not to be subjected to forced resettlement.   As also underlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, States must ensure that trade and investment agreements do not constrain their ability to meet their human rights obligations (Guiding Principle 9).   Observers are concerned that these treaties and agreements are likely to have a number of retrogressive effects on the protection and promotion of human rights, including by lowering the threshold of health protection, food safety, and labour standards, by catering to the business interests of pharmaceutical monopolies and extending intellectual property protection.   There is a legitimate concern that both bilateral and multilateral investment treaties might aggravate the problem of extreme poverty, jeopardize fair and efficient foreign debt renegotiation, and affect the rights of indigenous peoples, minorities, persons with disabilities, older persons, and other persons leaving in vulnerable situations. Undoubtedly, globalization and the many Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) can have positive but also negative impacts on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, which entails practical international solidarity.   Investor-state-dispute settlement (ISDS) chapters in BITs and FTAs are also increasingly problematic given the experience of decades related arbitrations conducted before ISDS tribunals. The experience demonstrates that the regulatory function of many States and their ability to legislate in the public interest have been put at risk.   We believe the problem has been aggravated by the “chilling effect” that intrusive ISDS awards have had, when States have been penalized for adopting regulations, for example to protect the environment, food security, access to generic and essential medicines, and reduction of smoking, as required under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, or raising the minimum wage.   ISDS chapters are anomalous in that they provide protection for investors but not for States or for the population. They allow investors to sue States but not vice-versa. The adoption in 2014 of the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration is an important step to address the problem of the typically confidential and non-participatory nature of investor-State agreements. Greater transparency should serve to remedy incoherence between current modes of investment with human rights considerations.   We invite States to revisit the treaties under negotiation and ensure that they foster and do not hinder human rights. If the treaties in question include a chapter on investor-State-dispute-settlement, the terms of reference of the arbitrators must be so drafted that interference in the domestic regulation of budgetary, fiscal, health and environmental and other public policies are not allowed.   Moreover arbitration tribunals should allow public review and its awards must be appealable before the International Court of Justice or a yet to be created an International Investment Court working transparently and with accountability. There must be a just balance between the protection afforded to investors and the States’ responsibility to protect all persons under their jurisdiction.   We recommend that:   All current negotiations of bilateral and multilateral trade and investment agreements should be conducted transparently with consultation and participation of all relevant stakeholders including labour unions, consumer unions, environmental protection groups and health professionals.   All draft treaty texts should be published so that Parliamentarians and civil society have sufficient time to review them and to weigh the pros and cons in a democratic manner.   Ex ante and ex post human rights impact assessments should be conducted with regard to existing and proposed BITs and FTAs.   The Parties should detail how they will uphold their human rights obligations if they ratify the BITs and FTA’s under negotiation.   Given the breadth and scope of the agreements currently under negotiation, robust safeguards must be embedded to ensure full protection and enjoyment of human rights.”   (*) The experts: Mr Alfred de Zayas, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Ms Catalina Devandas Aguilar, Special Rapporteur on the rights of person with disabilities, Mr Dainus Puras, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Ms Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Ms Gabriella Knaul, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms Hilal Helver, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr Juan Bohoslavsky, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debts and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, Mr Léo Heller, Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drink water and sanitation, Ms Victoria Lucia Tauli-Corpuz, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Ms Virginia Dandan, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity. http://bit.ly/1KM1uGZ   April 2015   Secret negotiations on trade treaties, a threat to human rights – UN expert   The Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, expressed his deep concern over the general lack of awareness on the adverse effects that existing, or under negotiations, bilateral and multilateral free trade and investment agreements have on the enjoyment of human rights in many countries, particularly in the developing world.   “I am concerned about the secrecy surrounding negotiations for trade treaties, which have excluded key stakeholder groups from the process, including labour unions, environmental protection groups, food-safety movements and health professionals.   Proactive disclosure by governments, genuine consultation and public participation in decision-making are indispensable to make these agreements democratically legitimate.   “Fast-tracking” adoption of such treaties has a detrimental impact on the promotion of a democratic and equitable world order.   It is tantamount to disenfranchising the public and constitutes a violation of human rights law, which stipulates that every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs.   There is a general lack of awareness concerning the adverse effects that existing bilateral and multilateral free trade and investment agreements already have on the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to health, the right to education and the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.   Human rights impact assessments should be urgently undertaken, given the numerous treaties currently under consideration and the potential risk they represent for the enjoyment of human rights.   I am especially worried about the impact that investor-state-arbitrations (ISDS) have already had and foreseeably will have on human rights, in particular the provision which allows investors to challenge domestic legislation and administrative decisions if these can potentially reduce their profits.   Such investor-state tribunals are made up of arbitrators, mostly corporate lawyers, whose independence has been put into question on grounds of conflict of interest, and whose decisions are not subject to appeal or to other forms of accountability.   The apparent lack of independence, transparency and accountability of ISDS tribunals also entails a violation ( prima-facie) of the fundamental principle of legality laid down in international human rights law, including article 14 of the ICCPR, which requires that suits at law be adjudicated by independent tribunals.   It has been argued that ISDS tilts the playing field away from democratic accountability, favouring “big business” over the rights and interests of labourers and consumers.   The establishment of parallel systems of dispute settlement and their exemption from scrutiny and appeal are incompatible with principles of constitutionality and the rule of law, and as such are harmful to the moral welfare of society (“contra bonos mores”).   “Because all States are bound by the United Nations Charter, all bi-lateral and international treaties must conform with the Charter and its principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, sovereign equality of States, the prohibition of the threat of and the use of force and of intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States.   Pursuant to article 103 of the Charter provisions of free trade and investment agreements, as well as decisions of ISDS arbitrators must conform with the UN Charter and must not lead to a violation, erosion of or retrogression in human rights protection or compromise State sovereignty and the State’s fundamental obligation to ensure the human rights and well-being of all persons living under its jurisdiction.   Agreements or arbitral decisions that violate international human rights law are null and void as incompatible with Article 103 of the UN Charter and contrary to international ordre public."   * Article 103 of the Charter stipulates that “in the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present charter shall prevail.” http://bit.ly/1Hv5URq   Feb 2015   Call for transparency in new generation trade deals. (The Lancet)   New proposed agreements for trade and investment threaten the ability of governments worldwide to provide affordable health care and to put in place health and environmental laws that protect public health and mitigate health inequity.   One such agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA), is in the final stages of negotiation between 12 Pacific-Rim countries, affecting more than 700 million people. Although USA-based industry advisers have been granted privileged access to negotiating documents, health agencies have been forced to rely on leaks for information.   As for the proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the USA, serious concerns about the health effects of the TPPA have been highlighted in medical journals and by civil society. The concerns include unprecedented expansion of intellectual property rights that would prolong monopolies on pharmaceuticals and reduce access to affordable and lifesaving generic medicines.   Effective price regulation of medicines could also be undermined. Rising medicine costs would disproportionately affect already vulnerable populations, obstructing efforts to improve health equity within and between countries.   Investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions allow investors to sue governments if policy changes or even court rulings substantially affect the value of their investment, yet do not allow governments to sue investors for breaching the right to health.   Investor state dispute settlement processes constrain governments abilities to regulate on the basis of the precautionary principle, or even to implement health policies on the basis of established evidence. These processes can have a chilling effect on efforts to address key health issues, such as alcohol, the obesity epidemic, and climate change. In New Zealand, the fear of costly ISDS litigation is already constraining government regulation on tobacco plain packaging.   As health practitioners in seven of the involved Pacific-Rim countries, we call on our governments to publicly release the full draft TPPA text, and to secure independent and comprehensive assessments of the health and human rights consequences of the proposed agreement for each nation. The assessments should evaluate the direct and indirect—and short-term and long-term—effects of the TPPA on public health policy and regulation, publicly funded health systems, the cost of medicines, and health equity; they should also be openly released to allow full public and legislative discussion before any political trade-offs are made and the agreement is signed.   http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960233-1/fulltext http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2014-09-29/europe-seeks-expand-big-pharma-monopoly-expense-poor-people-warn http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/opinion/dont-trade-away-our-health.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html http://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/more-than-100-legal-scholars-call-on-congress-administration-to-protect-democracy-and-sovereignty-in-u-s-trade-deals http://ab.co/1GhW18P http://www.socialplatform.org/news/the-fight-continues-for-protection-and-transparency-in-eu-us-trade-negotiations/ http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/summary.faces/en/58670/html.bookmark   * The U.S. Trump Administration has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). Visit the related web page
	Aboriginal people want compensation for a lifetime of unpaid wages by Ginny Stein Australia   July 2015   Indigenous workers fighting for wages taken from them by the government are taking their case to court in a move which could set a national precedent.   To the long fight to reclaim stolen wages. It''s affected tens of thousands of Indigenous people across Australia.   Each state had its own government department to administer the finances of Aboriginal workers who weren''t considered responsible enough to manage their own money. Queensland alone is said to owe $500 million in unpaid wages. In 2002, $55 million was offered in compensation, and in May this year, a further fund of $21 million was set up.   It''s estimated that the New South Wales Government separately also owes about $70 million to Indigenous workers.   Now, Western Australia is facing a legal challenge over its compensation payout for unpaid wages, which, if successful, could set a national precedent.   Between 1905 and 1972, the Government withheld up to three quarters of the money earned by workers on state-run native welfare settlements. Instead of being dispersed, the money ended up in state coffers and the financial records vanished.   In 2012, the WA Government made a one-off payment of $2,000 to a select group of former Aboriginal pastoral workers, but as Ginny Stein reports, that''s been rejected by many as an insult.   Josie Farrer is home.   GINNY STEIN: These women are her mothers, her aunties. She''s happy to see them, but she''s angry with the State Government and the little compensation it''s paid.   JOSIE FARRER: Am I worth that, you know, for the years that I put in working? For the years I had to look after my kids? For the years I had to do all the manual stuff?   GINNY STEIN: What binds them is their past lives on the Native Welfare Department-run Moola Bulla Station and the Government''s paltry compensation payout of $2,000 for a lifetime of stolen wages for work on the station.   PHYLLIS WALLABY, FORMER STATION WORKER: Us family, we used to go walkabout ourself. Our grandfather used to take us. And mothers. Them mothers.   GINNY STEIN: Now, they''re part of a legal challenge against the West Australian Government to reclaim unpaid wages.   DENNIS EGGINGTON, CEO, WA ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE: Many people worked a lifetime for near to nothing and then to get $2,000 is - was just disgusting. We felt hurt and disgusted and it''s probably one of the reasons that''s driving us today is that that mean and paltry amount of money was nothing compared to the work that - and the effort that Aboriginal people put in to building a great state like Western Australia.   RUTH ABDULLAH, KUNUNURRA COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE: We''re working our guts off, no pay and it still doesn''t meet. So imagine the - mum and them here and aunty - $2,000, after they more or less built this place for us to live and survive and go for the future for our children.   GINNY STEIN: The State Government declined to be interviewed on what is says is a complex case, but in response provided this statement:   PETER COLLIER, ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS MINISTER: "Stolen wages was a complex matter in Western Australia due to the lack of surviving records and the passing of time, but the State Government''s response aimed to balance the claims of those affected against the contemporary needs of Aboriginal Western Australians."   JOSIE FARRER: Today, Australia is marketing live cattle from the Kimberley to Asian countries - live cattle. If it weren''t for these Aboriginal people and the number of Aboriginal people that worked on these cattle stations, the lone pastoralist wouldn''t have got to where he is today.   GINNY STEIN: At Koongie Park, now an Aboriginal family-fun cattle property in Western Australia''s far north, the past and present collide.   Oscar Yanigee spent a lifetime as a stockman working on neighbouring Moola Bulla Station.   MAN: You were doing all the stock work, mainly stock work you were doing. Fencing.   OSCAR YANIGEE, FORMER STOCKMAN: Yeah, fencing.   MAN: Yard - yard building.   JOSIE FARRER: Oscar Yanigee does not know how old he is. His birth was never recorded. But he does know what he was paid for a lifetime of work. First nothing, then a little, but not in money, in food rations.   MAN: What about in the proper early days?   OSCAR YANIGEE: That''s all, yeah.   MAN: You remember them days?   OSCAR YANIGEE: Yeah. Corned beef.   MAN: Sugar and tea, bit of corned beef.   OSCAR YANIGEE: Yeah.   GINNY STEIN: Moola Bulla is remembered for its brutal punishments and its strict controls.   PHYLLIS WALLABY: I was working just for a bag of flour or some wheat. That''s all I got.   GINNY STEIN: But it''s also spoken about with a sense of affection and loss.   Jane Butters remembers the day she arrived at Moola Bulla. She had been snatched from her mother. She was six years old.   JANE BUTTERS, FORMER STATION WORKER: Well this is a story about Moola Bulla, where I grew up. And we used to do our work in the morning, you know, at Moola Bulla. Get up about 5 o''clock, get our milk, put the beds out before sun-up.   GINNY STEIN: The settlement was one of a number run by the West Australian Government for children of mixed blood, labelled back then as half-castes.   JANE BUTTERS: You know, when I first went there, there was more half-caste kids than white man and black people, you know. I didn''t think there was so many of those people, you know.   GINNY STEIN: Now in her 80s, Jane Butters life of unpaid or underpaid work and of government control is plainly laid out in her welfare file.   JUDY HARRISON, KUNUNURRA COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTRE: So Jane, with this letter here, which is from Mr Macbeth from the Native - Department of Native Affairs, it says, "Jane was under my direct control from April, 1949 until May, 1952."   GINNY STEIN: Lawyer Judy Harrison has been documenting the cases of hundreds of claimants.   JUDY HARRISON: So, some people might''ve spent their entire working lives without receiving any income and the Western Australian Government gave them $2,000. So, Aboriginal people in general felt insulted and demeaned by the Government taking that position.   JANE BUTTERS: I should be paid for all the work I''ve done, you know. Every day, not just whatever. I worked hard. I deserve the money. I didn''t complain, you know, I did it.   GINNY STEIN: A legal challenge to the State Government''s limited compensation offer is now being prepared.   DENNIS EGGINGTON: We''ve been pursuing this matter even since before the payment was made and we''ll continue to do so until these people get proper reparation for the work that they did.   GINNY STEIN: For the Indigenous stockmen and women and young boys and girls who helped build Australia''s pastoral industry, but were never paid for their years of work, the fight is far from over. But finding an equitable solution requires political will, something which has been historically lacking.   The day the Government sold Moola Bulla Station in 1995, Aboriginal workers and their families were forcibly removed and scattered.   Josie Farrer was just one year old. To survive, she and her family moved to another property.   JOSIE FARRER: I worked from when I was about 14 years old. That work was milking the goats in the mornings to make sure there was fresh milk and cream on the table for our white or European bosses. And then later, when I got married, I worked on a number of stations with my husband. He worked as a horse breaker and I used to do a lot of sewing for the white managers and their families.   GINNY STEIN: Were you paid for that?   JOSIE FARRER: No, we weren''t paid for it. I wasn''t paid for it.   GINNY STEIN: For Josie Farrer, this is a very personal battle. There''s no doubt she wants compensation for unpaid wages for an increasingly ageing group of claimants. But she also believes constitutional recognition is paramount. Only then will true and meaningful reconciliation be possible.   JOSIE FARRER: It''s been proven we are the first people of this country and this Parliament should be recognising us as the first people of this State, in this country they call Western Australia, that''s part of the bigger picture of Australia, that we should be treated as people. Visit the related web page
	View more stories